The Bible is perfect and contains ZERO contradictionsA True Christian™ guide to logic

The "problem": contradictions?
Every so often, an arrogant atheist pig will attempt to point out "contradictions" they've apparently found in the Bible using their unholy powers of "logic". Generally they attempt to use this as the basis of an argument denying the existence of God. I'm here to tell you why these people are so wrong that they're "not even wrong" (to borrow a term from their own parlance).

First, let's examine a few simple, oft-cited cases of "contradictions":

Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:16

Then spake Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. 1 Kings 8:12

According to the first verse, from Timothy, God dwells in the light but in the second, He dwells in thick darkness. Surely there is some mistake?

And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. Exodus 33:23

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:18

In the first verse, parts of God are said to be visible to Moses but the second verse says that no man has ever seen God. He is both visible and invisible. How is this possible?

The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good. Proverbs 15:3

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. Genesis 11:5

According to the book of Proverbs, God is omnipresent. He sees everything everywhere all at once. Yet in Genesis, it is made clear that He has to relocate Himself in order to see. That can't be the case, right?

The faux Christian resolution to the "problem"
Faux Christians (or foe Christians, if you prefer) are invariably hardline revisionists. The revisionist tactics can be used to make the Bible mean whatever you want it to! You can reinterpret verses to change their meaning and ignore the parts you don't like, effectively transforming God's word into something that isn't God's word. The relevance of this to our overall theme is that revisionists will often try to resolve so-called "contradictions" in the Bible by excluding verses, changing their meanings or by forging a weird hybrid interpretation of multiple verses on the fly. I'm going to explain why this is clearly the wrong way to go.

When confronted with a Bible verse that tickles their conscience or doesn't neatly coincide with their existing worldview, faux Christians resolve the cognitive dissonance by simply discarding the "questionable" verse. They do a similar thing on a massive scale whenever the Bible fails to keep up with the contemporary moral standards for mainstream society (see the progressive attitude towards homosexuality for example). They'll say that the verses about stoning, slavery and submissive wives are anachronisms; that they were a function of the time in which they were written. When asked why God's word isn't perfect and timeless, they'll say the Bible was "inspired by God" but "transcribed by fallible humans". What they're basically saying is that humans can't be trusted to relay the word of God accurately -- yet these same people are absolutely fine with different and equally fallible people relaying a modified version of the message 2000 years later? No, I'm sorry, that's just stupid.

What does this mean? Well, for starters, it means that faux Christians are wrong. They're wrong and they may just end up in hell for it. What they're really doing is holding the Bible to their own moral standards instead of holding their own moral standards to the Bible. Where does God say that it's okay to ignore parts of the Bible that you don't like? Where does God say that some verses have an expiry date? The Bible describes homosex as an abomination, not an abomination until next Tuesday. As soon as you change one little word of God's book, all guarantees are off. By the time you realise that your modified Bible isn't actually what God intended, you'll be in hell.

If you're going to go through the Bible with a marker pen, crossing out what you don't like, why don't you just burn the thing? First, you decide that there's nothing shameful or dirty about a woman's intimate bleeding, next thing you know you're harpooning whales with your penis. Crossing out Bible verses is a slippery slope.

Some of this selective ignorance is actually sanctioned by religious "leaders" and "authorities". The catholic church, for instance, reinterprets the Bible pretty much at will (presumably useful to justify raping altar boys). Don't be fooled, the Bible doesn't give those "leaders" the right to rewrite it either. All humans are fallible and cannot be trusted to reinterpret the Bible without damaging its integrity.

I hope I've shown you that, no matter who is doing the revision, Biblical revisionism is wrong and hypocritical. Frankly, the faux Christians who engage in it are the last people I would want resolving the Bible's so-called "contradictions".

The overarching point of all this is that you can not and should not attempt to resolve contradictions in the Bible, nor should you delegate this responsibility to fallible, self-appointed religious "authorities".

You are stupid, God is not
Although I'm not convinced that quantum mechanics is real (I've never seen a "quibit", have you?), if God did create it, it would certainly help to demonstrate my next point. You see, quantum mechanics makes no sense and physics PhDs can confirm that. God doesn't have to make sense to less intelligent lifeforms like us. In other words: the Bible isn't stupid, you're stupid. What you understand to be "contradictions" using your limited powers of "logic" and "deduction", God does not.

Consider the following: if God limited His actions to only those that you, personally, can understand, he could never have created humanity! Can you create a human from scratch? Because I sure can't! Our contemporary scientists, supposedly some of the brightest minds on the planet, can't even isolate the gene that turns blacks into sub-human savages. How can we have the sheer arrogance to demand that God works in ways understandable to us when our understanding is so limited?

One of atheism's major problems is an inherent superiority complex. I couldn't tell you why this happens, perhaps it's a little game to make their stay in hell's waiting room more pleasant. But have you atheists ever considered that perhaps not everyone is stuck in the same quagmire of "rationality"? That not everyone is as dumb as you?

Take, for example, Stephen Hawking. I'm sure he understands quantum mechanics. I'm sure he understands a lot of things that you don't. Perhaps he doesn't see the "contradictions" in the Bible that you do. Are you really so arrogant as to claim intellectual superiority over him? Now, before you say to me "Elijah, you're wrong, Stephen Hawking is a God-mocking spaz-o-tron" maybe we should stop and consider why he preaches atheism. Isn't it obvious? God made him a degenerate cripple so now he's angry and bitter. And why did God make him a degenerate cripple? Well, probably because God knew what a nasty secuLIAR he would turn out to be.

Challenging the logical paradigm
It's not my job to educate you on the subject of formal logic. Logic, like all things, was created by God. Logic is a great thing sometimes. It can be used for wonderful, Godly purposes. But all too often atheists misunderstand and misuse it to continue oppressing Christians. I see it all the time on this forum unfortunately.

Traditional formal logic (propositional, predicate etc.) deals with binary classifications of true and false. A statement is either true or false. "All atheists are satanists" is either true or false (it's true by the way). "Catholic priest Father Frank is a paedophile" is either true or false (it's actually false -- he's dead). And so on and so forth. In formal logic, a contradiction occurs when there is a conflict between two statements (or propositions, to be precise).

Let's take, for example, the first Biblical "contradiction" listed in this thread. The first proposition is that "God dwells in the light" and the second is that "God dwells in the dark". Since, as I'm sure you'll agree, "dark" implies an absence of light, classical logic would consider this a contradiction. Both propositions cannot simultaneously be true.

Let's represent the two propositions by the letters p and q as follows:

We know this system of propositions is inconsistent; it is contradictory. We know that p and q are incompatible because of our a posteriori knowledge of their semantics.

If we acknowledge that when there is no light, there is darkness then (that is that q is the equivalent of the negation of p).

With this simplification, we can express the system as a conjunction of both propositions (for those who don't know their logical symbols, the identity below simply states that two statements of opposite meaning cannot both be true simultaneously):

Since this compound proposition is always false by the negation law, it is a logical contradiction in its purest form.

I believe I've now established common ground and a shared starting point between us by acknowledging that the traditional paradigm of logic demonstrates "contradictions" in the Bible. I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the application of classical logic, which is limited by our human intellect, to God's work. It's fallacious to cry wolf about apparent "contradictions" when we really have no understanding of God's logic.

Why should necessarily be false? After all, God created everything, including logic, so it seems insufferably arrogant to claim that we know better than He does about how it works. Where does this idea that is false even come from? Nowhere in the Bible does it say that this is a contradiction.

Given that we have observed "contradictions" in the Bible using the classical paradigm of logic, it is clear that our classical paradigm is not objectively correct (and I'm surprised that academics aren't more concerned about this). It works for some things, sure, but we need to refine the very foundations of our logic if we are to stand a chance of reasoning about the Bible.

The idea of a "supposition of states" is one of the things that makes quantum mechanics so difficult to understand. But if it exists, God understands it perfectly! Never forget that God can understand things of which we cannot even conceive. Likewise, He is able to see through and think beyond our simplistic categorisation of true/false to create things that are neither.

Enter fuzzy logic
Over time, scholars grew wise to our cognitive errors and black-and-white thinking. What heathens call "fuzzy logic" is probably the closest approximation to God's own logic system that we have achieved to date. If the number 1 represents "true" and 0 represents "false" then fuzzy logic opens up the entire domain of real numbers between 0 and 1 for valuations. Under fuzzy logic, statements like "that's kind of true" suddenly become fair game.

Let's examine how we can apply fuzzy logic to the Bible with our previous example propositions, p and q. Let 1 represent "God dwells in light" and 0 represent "God dwells in darkness" such that a value of 0.5 might represent the statement "God dwells in half-light" (I say "might" because I have no idea what God intended, I'm just trying to expand your mind to see beyond simplistic "contradictions").

How do we work out a single number from two Biblical propositions? Well, that's simple! There's a variadic function, let's call it g (defined g(p, q, ...)), which takes an arbitrary number of Biblical propositions (greater than or equal to 2) and returns an answer. The answer is a number between 0 and 1 indicating God's intended balance between the original propositions.

In cases where the interpretation of the result is not intuitive (i.e. every case because God defies human intuition), there is another analogous function, i, which takes the same arguments as g and returns the semantics of g's valuation.

Since g and i return a number and a single atomic proposition, respectively, there's no way for the results to be contradictory according to the axioms of classical logic. Thus it is trivially seen that there aren't actually any contradictions in the Bible at all.

Under my proposed system, you can use the two functions to resolve ANY so-called "contradiction" in the Bible!

Obviously, the functions are not available to you or I. Why would they be? We should be praying, not questioning God's reasoning. But their existence should be hugely comforting to all real Christians.

Conclusion
Hopefully you're satisfied that I've demonstrated the perfect nature of the Bible and its complete lack of contradictions.

To summarise:

Think you've found a contradiction in the Bible? DO NOT attempt to resolve it yourself and DO NOT allow anyone else to do so either. God has already done it for you.

If you answered "yes" to the last question, you're wrong. You are too stupid to spot contradictions in the word of God. God's logic is not accessible to you or I.

On the off-chance you're a highly intelligent atheist and you've found a genuine contradiction, you're wrong. You're using the wrong logical paradigm. God's logic is not your logic, cretin!

If you get this far and you understand that God doesn't deal in your true/false absolutes, you will understand why there are no contradictions in the Bible.

So just follow what the Bible says, to the letter, and look forward to eternal life in Heaven! Praise Jesus!

But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy. (2 Chronicles 36:16)

I CORINTHIANS 120 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
KJV ..more here

Now my head is going peculiar as I think about that, but I was reminded of the dialogue between Democritus and Aristotle just as Paul had been reminded in his epistle to the Corinthians.

Quote:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/
Epicurus held that the elementary constituents of nature are undifferentiated matter, in the form of discrete, solid and indivisible particles (“atoms”) below the threshold of perception, plus empty space. In its broad outline, Epicurus inherited this scheme from the earlier atomists, above all Democritus. But Democritus' version had been the object of critiques by later thinkers, especially Aristotle, in part for incoherencies in the notion of an infinite void, in part for problems attaching to his idea of minima, or entities of the smallest conceivable size (see especially Physics Book 6). First, freestanding entities of minimal size could have no edges, and so no shapes, or rather would be all edge: thus, if two minima touched, they would wholly overlap. (The same argument applies to points in a line, which is why a line contains points but is not composed of them, according to Aristotle.) Further, if atoms really are conceptually indivisible, and not just physically unsplittable, then when two atoms pass by each other it is impossible that they should at any time be only partway past, for this would imply a point partway along the length of the atom, which contradicts the premise that it is a minimum. Although Aristotle does not state the argument precisely in this form, it is apparent that a strict conception of minimal-sized atoms entails that motion too must consist of discontinuous quanta; and if motion, then time. Atoms must, then, Aristotle inferred, move in discrete hops (kinęmata), each one occupying a single temporal minimum — and hence, all atoms must move at a uniform speed. An infinite void, with atoms distributed throughout it, led to problems of its own, for it permits no intrinsic spatial orientation and hence no account of why things fall, as they are observed to do.

Often, in a musical environment, I am required to assess the performance on drums by participants in an educational setting. There is a sliding scale from abysmal to excellent according to such parameters as

are they drumming in time?

are they leading or following?

if I stop playing the piano, do they keep on drumming?

if we all change the rhythm, do they keep on with the previous rhythm?

Pretty straightforward really, and easy to demonstrate whether learning is taking place especially where language is not available. In developing such as assessment method I found that it was easier to assign values from –2 to +2 rather than from 1 to 5

+2
+1
0
–1
–2

The optimum value might be 0 in that case.

For example a drummer could be consistent and confident, which would get a good score
but be playing the wrong rhythm

So there'd be a +2 and a –2 resulting in a score of 0 overall but that would be a bad 0, not a good 0.

In the imaginary world of secular logic with its discrete minima and quantum leaps, its "rights" and "wrongs" and "mutuallies exclusive" perhaps a similar system would be useful?

Responses at the extremities of any range are more significant. The greater the folly, as perceived through the lens of atheistic logic, the clearer their delusion becomes. Having established that the atheist's responses have a consistency significantly better than random (random responses merit no further analysis because they are random) we would like to know whether their responses are balanced. In the above example a t test demonstrates that although our drummer was drumming away like billy-o what was being played was no better balanced than random

Consistency?consistent and confident, which would get a good score +2Balanced? but be playing the wrong rhythm–2
t test says not balanced = bad 0

and it's exactly the same for the atheist, raving in an imaginary number of meaningless propositions all based upon the baseless foundation of disbelief

Consistency?consistent and confident, "Christians are always mad, bad and dangerous to know" +2Balanced? but although they call us "mad" or "deranged" it's for a different reason every day –2
t test says not balanced = bad 0

We get to hear the atheist drum here quite a lot. There are minor issues such as the taxonomic system for describing creatures with wings or whether the 7th day is Saturday or Sunday and stuff like that of which there's quite a lot and it's all somewhat arbitrary really....God has explained the true situation.......They disagree,.........C’est la vie.

The more significant matters, such as whether exterminating myriads of heathen babies is an expression of love, are more confronting. So often we read in their posts how God commands murder or rape or whatever distortion of His Inerrant Word they favour on the day when we know that nothing God commands ever disagrees with His commandments..• These objections from atheists show the devil inside each one of them is at full oven temperature.

By subtracting the number of minor perceived discrepencies as described by the atheist observer from their more significant responses at the extreme end of the range a negative number of observations becomes available.

To see whether theirs is a balanced response the variance is divided by which in this case is an imaginary number since we are dealing with the significant responses (having subtracted their arbitrary objections which are not significantly different from random and amount to just making up stuff to be awkward) thereby aligning our analysis with the imaginary nature of their objections as described by Paul in his comparison with the Greek philosophers, some of whose musings I have posted.

Disbelief in God is an abomination in its own right and we know from Dr Mee's demonstration that they are claiming opposites to be the same thing as well, p and not p applied to light and not light or to thick darkness and not thick darkness—they might as well just say that light is the absence of darkness and get it over with—amounts to declaring God's presence as the negation of His absence and since His absence is the primum mobile of all their pronouncements, the atheist agenda stands revealed as presuppositionalist dogma in all its glum stupor.

My brother! You speak the words of the Lord! From Matthew to Mark to John and Luke you are the words of our saviour Jesus Christ! I cannot thank you enough for your revelation, I too am not worthy to receive your word.

My brother! You speak the words of the Lord! From Matthew to Mark to John and Luke you are the words of our saviour Jesus Christ! I cannot thank you enough for your revelation, I too am not worthy to receive your word.

Dear Scottish Person;

Please make a thread of your own in the "Introductions" section of the forum, so that we can properly greet you. Tell us about yourself, your church, and how you came to find Jesus.

And if you're here to flame us, better take a look at THIS before making an even bigger ass out of yourself.

I will pray that the Holy Spirit enter you and chase the demons out of your rectum and let Jesus fill you with His Grace. If you use your God-given free will to reject Christ and His temporary death on the cross for my sins, then you are sending yourself to hellfire.

My brother! You speak the words of the Lord! From Matthew to Mark to John and Luke you are the words of our saviour Jesus Christ! I cannot thank you enough for your revelation, I too am not worthy to receive your word.

Why have you substituted dollar signs into the name of our Lord and Saviour?

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.Matthew 6:24

But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy. (2 Chronicles 36:16)

Isaiah 24:23 KJV
Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.

The atheist world is meagre and bleak. Aristotle is reported to have wasted time cooking up arguments about nothing for example. Is a void, empty space, nothing? What if there were no space? What would that be? Nothing. So that's two types of nothing.

no particles (such as atoms) - emptiness

no space

They didn't stop there. What about interactions? What happens if nothing is interacting? Nothing. They toss this gibberish around between themselves and without dwelling on the arguments involved, a more complete list might be

no particles

no space

no interactions (and therefore no laws which are derived from observing interactions)

no radiation (because radiation results from interactions I suppose at least to some extent), and thus..

no time

••WARNING~contains gibberish~intendedFor Parental Guidancefollowing the stuff pumped out by television networks these days••

These dismal eternities encourage neither present hope nor future delight. Nothing is as good as it gets. The Bible is not like that as every atheist knows and probably that's why they don't respond. Maybe they read the thread and find it too challenging. So if that's the case I would not like them to go away empty handed and will post an easy-to-read tract demonstrating what is available from God, whose Plan offers us the certainty of Redemption and forgiveness. But forgiveness demands a price, which is set out at the end, so without further ado and with Scriptural references throughout..

Jeremiah 17:18 KJV
Let them be confounded that persecute me, but let not me be confounded: let them be dismayed, but let not me be dismayed: bring upon them the day of evil, and destroy them with double destruction.

Isaiah 24:23 KJV
Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.

The atheist world is meagre and bleak. Aristotle is reported to have wasted time cooking up arguments about nothing for example. Is a void, empty space, nothing? What if there were no space? What would that be? Nothing. So that's two types of nothing.

no particles (such as atoms) - emptiness

no space

They didn't stop there. What about interactions? What happens if nothing is interacting? Nothing. They toss this gibberish around between themselves and without dwelling on the arguments involved, a more complete list might be

no particles

no space

no interactions (and therefore no laws which are derived from observing interactions)

no radiation (because radiation results from interactions I suppose at least to some extent), and thus..

no time

••WARNING~contains gibberish~intendedFor Parental Guidancefollowing the stuff pumped out by television networks these days••

These dismal eternities encourage neither present hope nor future delight. Nothing is as good as it gets. The Bible is not like that as every atheist knows and probably that's why they don't respond. Maybe they read the thread and find it too challenging. So if that's the case I would not like them to go away empty handed and will post an easy-to-read tract demonstrating what is available from God, whose Plan offers us the certainty of Redemption and forgiveness. But forgiveness demands a price, which is set out at the end, so without further ado and with Scriptural references throughout..

Jeremiah 17:18 KJV
Let them be confounded that persecute me, but let not me be confounded: let them be dismayed, but let not me be dismayed: bring upon them the day of evil, and destroy them with double destruction.

Aristotle wasted time thinking about a lot of things. Introspection, critical analysis, independent thought... all of these things are anathema to praising God.

The only bigger waste of time than philosophy is theology. God's word does not require a degree in theology to understand because God takes mercy on the borderline retardeds (but not the full retardeds and illiterates who cannot know His word and will only know hell). Praise Him!

But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy. (2 Chronicles 36:16)